The Sun. — London, England, 1818-01-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 15. orERA-HOUSE:—TAYLon V. WATgRS. Sit S. ROMILLY stated, that he had to move in this case, that a sum of 1,300/. And upwards, be ing the amount of interest on the sum of 28;973/. xvhich Mr. Waters had been ordered - to pay into Court on the Ist of Dec. 1816, should be directed to be paid personally to Mr. Taylor. The Learned Counsel , after taking a retrospective view of the cir conistanees connected with the situation of the Opera-horse property up to the period of its final sale to the defendant for the sum of 71,000/ , and his appointment to the office of manager, pending the investigation of the accounts, upon an under taking to cover all the expenses of the season with the sum of 29 0001., explained the grounds upon which the present motion was submitted to the Court. The whole of I motion, indeed, com prehended ioterest ou the sum of 35,5131., which, in the view of Mr. Taylor, was the amount of his present interest in the money produced by the sale of the Opera House. But after considerable liti gation with regard to the payment of the purchase- Money, his Lordship had directed that it should be paid into Court on the Ist of December, 1816. Mr. Waters, however, afterwards caused t nego tiation to be opened with Mr. Taylor for his con-. sent to a very advantageous proposal of disposing of the establishment to certain persons of fashion, promising, tifat• if the latter would accommodate hint by agreeing to an enlargement of the period for pying his share, amounting to 28,9731., into Court, he, Mr. Waters, would consent to pay him interest upon it, and divide him also the yro fits atiiog from the new sale. The period was Eccordingly enlarged on the 23d April, but the expectation of .disposing of the Theatre was dis appointed ; nor was the purchase-money due by Mr. Waters ultimately paid in till enforced by another order of the Court, in August last.— Under these circumstances, he was at a loss to conceive what oppositiou could be offered to the means taken to compel a performance of what was so evidently au obligation of good faith. Mr. ltouitm ve,is heard on the same side. Mr. HART and Mr. BARBER contended, that the undertaking on the part of Mr. Waters to pay the interest must be regarded 3S conditional, and con tingent on the event of the negociation fur selling the Opera property taking effect. It teas clear that the order now asked of his Lordship would have the effect f letting in Mr. Taylor's claim to portion of the profits and emolutaents derived from the public entertainments of the Theatre during the last season. They submitted, that if the interest was to be paid, it ought to go to the general hind, awaiting the final determination of the accounts, and not to Mr. Taylor, as against whom Mr. Waters had recently proved demands, which had been allowed by the Master, more than equal to the amount of the interest claimed by this application. The LoRD CHANCELLOR inquired whether the last season had turned out a profitable one ? Mr. HART replied, that he understood there had never beets a better. However stormy they had been outside the house, within all was flourishing and prosperous. In reply, it was urged by Sir S. itomiLLY, that although Mr. Iltaters had put in new demands in the nature of a set-off against the interest due ac coruing to his own voluntary engagement, it was clear that this was no answer at all; ihose demands, if equitable or legal, must be added to those other liens which Mr. Waters might have,• either as mortgagee or the personal representative of Ms. Gould upon the 9-16ths of the purchase-money, which appeared at present to be the property of Mr. Taylor. Ile had reasiso to believe that, com paratively favourable as the last season might have been, no profits had heels realized. . The LORD CHANCELLOR held Mr. Waters to•be fully hound hy his otter of interest, in considera tion for enlarging the period for payinctit of the purchase-money. This, he appreleended, was the true consideration of the after, and not the suc- CeSS of a tty . negociatiotts with gentlemen of fa-. shim'. The interest ought, therefore in his opi nion, to he paid to Mr. Taylor personally. WATERS V. TAYLOR. Mr. HAwr said this was an application made for the purpose of obtaining directions to the Regis trar, to l• iss an order, enabling Nlr. IVaters to account for the expenditure of 0 large souk of tanney, which had been applied to Ilse building a new set of dressing-rooms in the Opera-house, anii making other imprc cements, with a view to the ainelioratiol of a property i❑ which Mr. IVit ters Was interested, not merely as Manager, but co-tenant in common. Fli3 motion simply prayed, that an order apt Court already made ShOWId now be executed. Sir S. Roxitt.t.v was prepared to object to this order, npon every principle of juslice, and of re gard to tne interests ot the proprietors, if the or der in question was in Court, so that a proper iffierpret:ition might be put on the terms in which it was conceived. It was sufficient for him at pre sent to say, that Mr. Waters had undertaken to c ,, n dnet the management, and pay every necessary expense for 29,0001. a year, although he now came forward to charge 6001. more, which he, in his great predilection for the establishment, had thought proper to expend in the building of new dressing-towns. The Lotto CHANCELLOR observed, that it ap r.ted to hint to be a larger sum than most of his AlajestN's subjects would think of expending on such a object. He desired, however, to see the order. In a nother cast between the same parties, rela tive to the proper computation of the interest on the whole of Mr. Taylor's share of the purchase money, it was agreed to 'arrange the subject of difference by a comparison of accounts. LUNACY. --SMITH IN THE MATTER OF SMITH. In this case, which was heard yesterday, the LORD HANCELLOR dided that the Commissioq should C be ex ecuted at ec the residence of the lunatic iu C a rdiganshire, and that be should be removed from the care of his mother and brother, and en trusted to that of his wife, Ann Smith. VICE CHANCELLOR'S C:OURT, .1.1 N• 15. At about eleven o'clock his Honour, Sir Jour; LEAcu, the new Vice Chancellor, took Lis seat for the first time. Having saluted the Bar in the customary form, he called on the Counsel for any motions they. might have to make, when Mr. BEN.Yow stated that there was a motion on the paper which it had been his intention to make; but in the abstmce of the Counsel on the other side, he was desirous to postpone it till to morrow.. The VICE CHANCELLOR said, he felt an animus and earnest desire to spew his respect for the-Gen tlemen at the Bar, fur whose accommodation he should be at all . times ready to sacrifice his own pet sonal convenience ; but he had a duty to per form for suitors and or the public of superior con sequence, and front which he must by no means suffer himself to be diverted. He sat thereto pro mote and facilitate the ends .of Justice, and the course of Justice ought not on trivial grounds to he impeded. The motions that stood on the paper for that day must, as far as time would allow, he made that day, and not be defer red until to-Morrow, for which the business had been al ready . set down.. -He was sure that the rule he was prescribing Was such as the Gentlemen of the Bar would themselves approve of, and was one from which, consistently with his duty, he could not depart. Mr. BENYON observed, that he was perfectly prepared to make his motion ; but that Mr. Agar, who was engaged on the other side, seas not in Court. His Honour having intimated that Mr. Agar should be sent for, that Gentleman soon afar a p. peered, and the motion, which was not .one of touch interest, except to the parties, came on. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. Is. THE SPA-FIELDS RIOTS. SPECIAL JURIES.—BKFoRB LORD ELLENBOROUGIC BECKWJTH V. BRIDGES AND ANOTHER. An action on the lstGeo : 1. c. 12., commonly called the Riot Act. The first count of the de- claration stated, that on the 2d of December; 1816, ,divers persons, being in number of 12 or more, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously, assembled together in the parish of St. Sepulchre, and Unlawfully demolished, and began to demo lish, the house of the plaintiff. Tl►e second count set out certain goods, the property of the plain t,ff, injured, destroyed, and carried away. On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. GURNEY stated, that the present action, as prescribed by ti,e very wholesome statute on which it was founded, was brought against two of the respect '. able inhabitants of the ward, who would not be called upon to pay the stun recovered ; it would be collected by a general rate upon the hundred. It was unnecessary to enter into a detail of the particulars of those riots, so disgraceful to the persons concerned in them, and so injurious to the property of many individuals in the line of streets through which the rioters proceeded. The att.tek commenced (limn the house of the plaintiff. a gunsmith in Skinner- . street ; for the object of the infamous disturbers of the public peace was to arm themselves, so es to he able to intimidate the peaceable subjects of s the King into submission, or to resist any attack that might be made upon them by the military. Young Watson, of whom so much had been heard, and who had unfortunately escaped justice, first entered the shop of the plain tiff, demanding arms ; and on meeting with re tnonstrance by Mr. Platt, a customer, he drew a and shot that . gentleman : he was secured, and the mob instantly commenced an attack upon tl►e house, breaking in the witulows, both wood and brass wo►k, declaring that they would demo lish tl►e I►ouse completely, if their leader was not restored to them. The damage door to the (loose an►ouuted 631. Is. 4d. A certain number of the arms taken away had been restored, but greatly injured ; and the value Of them, in their deterior ated state, .was 3051. 13s. 61. The value of tie guns, pistols, &c. of which no tidings had since been obtained, was 911/. 195.; making, in the whole, 1,281/. las. 10:1., the amount the plaintiff sought to recover by this action. liolu►e, the foreman of the plaintiff, paired many facts already before the public, relative to die attack upon the plaintiff's shop. Young Watson came in demanding " Arms, Arms !" and the mob re-echoed the cry. When be was taken, some of the rioters exclaimed, " We will pull the 1)--y house down, we will have him out." They began their attack immediately. This relation Was confirmed by Mr. Lydiard, who also proved that several of the crowd threatened to demolish the house. J. IL Houghton, J. Hulot, and C. Jones, trades men employed in repairing the injury, proved that their various hills amounted to 641. is. 4d. Mr. Parker, Mr, Mortimer, and Alf. Nock, three gunsmiths, deposed that the stint of 3051. 13s. 6th for guns, 80. damaged, and .9111. 19s. for such as had been taken away and never returited i . was' reasonable. The ComMON SERJEANT, on behalf of die de fendants, confidently argued that the plaintiff had no pretence for claiming 12811. udder the Riot Act, which provided On consequence of numerous disturbances and destructions of Meeting-houses; &c. at the time it was passed), that the party in, jured should have his remedy against the.Han tired, if the mob either demolished or began to demolish die dwelling-house of the plaintiff. It had been decided in many cases, that in order to support this action, it must arise out of a felony comm4ted expressly under the Act ; the proceed ing of the mob must be directed to the demoli tion of the hoi se, and if the rioters had any other purpose in their attack the action could not be tnaintained, Here it seemed clear that the design was to obtain arms in the first instance,andafttr wattla to liberate their leader, young Watson and if they plundered the shop, that was a felony, but a felony of quite a different kind ; it was a burglary, and was punishable as a burglary, and the suffering party could obtain no compensation front the hundred. For this reason the plaintiff could not recover for the arms stolen, though he might, perhaps, for those damaged. In Grisley v. Higginbotham (1 East. 136), the Court of King's Bench had held, that a baker suing under the Riot Act, could not obtain damages for a quantity of flour which bad been stolen from his premise* during a riot, in which his premises were assailed and injured. Lord ELLENBOROUGII,---.TherC no damage was, done to the building containing the flour stolen ; I hat case has no relation .to this—it is not ad idem. You had better open the book at random, and quote from it what first presents itself. Mr. TINDAL (with the COMMON SERGEANT) read the note of the case, in order to convince his' Lordship that he was mistaken : it appeared that considerable damage had been done to the building to which the warehouse from whence the flour was stolen was a lean-to ; but it was held by the Court that the plaintiff could not recover for the flour stolen, inasmuch a-s that was a distinct felony in dependent of star. I. Geo. I.; he could have da mages only for that which was destroyed or da maged. He further mentioned a case before Mr. Justice Le 'Blanc at York, where that Judge had decided, that a party could not recover for furni ture stolen from a dwelling-house that had been begun to be demolished in a riot. Lord ELLENBoROUGH.—If it were unconnected with the act of demolishing, I should ceitainly . be of the same opinion. The CoraMoa SP.RJEANT further referred to Reed v. Clarke, (7 T. R. 496.) for the partial demolition of the house of a Quaker, who would not illuminate for one of the victories of Lord St. Vincent. Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—I was counsel in the cause, and I recoli-e,ct that it was held not to be beginning to demolish, because having the power In demolish if they chose, the crowd went away without prosecuting their purpose : they aban doned it altogether. The COMMON SERJEANT added, that in Lord King v. Chambt•rs, the same point had been de termined ; Lord Ellenboroogli then observing, " the acts of the mob must indicate a purpose to demolish the house." In the present case, the purpose was not to demolish the house, but to ob tain arms and to liberate their leader. Lord ELLENBOROUGH referred to the evidence of Holme and Lydian!, for the declarations of the rioters, remarking that the question was, whether dick polo - use was not to pull clown and demolish the house, had they not been pacified by learning that young . Watson had made his escape ? They had a general contemplation of that which came within the Act. His Lordship added, that he should rcquest the Jury to divide the damages for the arms injured, and for those stolen, in or der that the Coalition Sergeant might afterwards, if he thought fit, move the Court upon the point. Mr. GURNEY submitted, thtit as it was clear upon the evidence that the arms returned to the plaintiff were marked in such a way with splinters of glass, &c., as to show that they had been used as a means of demolition of the windows, &c., the Jury would infer that those not returned (or stolen, as the Counsel on the other side contend ed) had been employed for the same purpose. • The COMMON SERGEANT insisted that there was not sufficient evidence to show even that the arms returned to the plaintiff had I)eem used in de molishing the house of the plaintiff. Ti, at they had been so used afterwards to other houses would not bring them within the Act. Mr. Robert Newrn3n was then called, in order to show, that the plaintiff had treated the fact of taking the arms as a substantive felony. For this purpose lie produced the record of the conviction of Cashman ; but on cross-examination he said that the prisoner was prosecuted by the City of Lo n don, not by the plaintiff. Lord Ellenborough declared, that it the tact were shown to be other wise, it would make no difference. ''bough a mao might have been in:licted for the felony and convicted, it did not fix the character of the offence as applied to others. It was not less a felony be caose it was accompanied by other and higher crimes ; in Mrs. Hutchins's case it was not less a robbery because that robbery was followed up or perpetrated by murder. Mr. GUIINEY i in his reply, called upon the Jury, that the arms lost valued at 9111. were all taken for the purpose of demolition, although they might be applied afterwatds to' other purposes. Lord ELLeNsoßouGit summed up, and observ ed, that by the Riot Act, that which before was a mere trespass at common law, had been erected into a felony, for the more effectual protection of private property. Of course the remedy by ac tion against the hundred (all the inhabitants being as it were pledges for the good behaviour of each other) WEIS given in its stead. 'file primary object had been to 'obtain arms ; afterwards to obtain the liheratoion of young Watson; and it seem ed undoubted by the witnesses, that had he not escaped, the mob would have demolished the house. The arms they used as instruments of destruction against the building, and they were not taken away for the mete purpose of obtaining as much money as they would tell for. The Jury divided the damages as stated in the opening of Mr. Gurney ; but they expressed a clear opinion that the arms were all taken in prosecution of the purpoSe of demolition. • Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1,2811. 135.10 d. BRANDER AND POTTS V. WOOD AND ANOTHER. An action, precisely similar, brought by the plaintiflg, who are gunsmiths in the Minories. They claimed 7521. 10s. I Id. being 621. 2s. sd. for the repair of the dwelling-house, 341. 1 la. 6d. for damaged guns, &c. and 6551. 17s. for arms taken away. The COMMON SERJEANT again urged his argu ment, that the purpose was not demolition, but . the procuring of arms ; but Lord Ellenborough was of a contrary opinion, and the Jury concur ring with his Lordship, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs. REA b. SAME. In this case the plaintiff, also a gunsmith in the Minories, recovered 9421. Is. 4d. It appeared in evidence that neither the plaintiff nor any of his servants lived in the house, and the Common Ser geant contended, that it was not, therefore, " his dwelling-house," as alleged in the declaration. Mr. GURNEY, on the other hand, produced a lease to the plaintiff's tather, and the probate of his will giving it to his son ; but Lord Ellcubo rough seemed to be of opinion that it did not sa tify the allegation ; he, however, saved the point, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict,, subject . to the discussion of it. P E' . R Y. 014 TAE ImMUTAiIILITY OF POPERY; BR • celebrated " ESTIMATE of ;be MANNERS *add MUT CiPLES of he TlMES:"—Loudon, • MS.' Sereutb tion.—Vol. 2. l'art 2. Sec. 4. " OF THE DIFFERENT GENIUS AND PERNIANESaI. OF POPERY AND PIIOVESTANTISM: (Concluded from ycsterda's SUN " With respect to the rest of-EurOpe, itsl)rea sent state tcods to prove strongly the'giineeid (milli here advanced. We see the . - Protestaa Crowns divided against each other; the PoPis ti Crowns in union and confederacy. Theltuss and Swede have joined the Popish Power in -tear' ing to pieces his Majesty of Prussia. The En'l press Queen hath at length thrown otf the masque, hath basely deserted those who had long and oft"n . saved her from destruction ; and given a striking proof of this great truth, that where pride and bi gotry rule the heart, there hurnan virtues fi ecru° . easy entrance. France is playing its old game/ and.pursuing its establi,hed plan of power. "'Thus the active and zealous Popish principle is every where working its way ; while the coldoeSS, of Protestantism leavesthe issue of things to 1 110 calm and ineffectual deliberation of civil policY forgetting that passion is the soul of action, ant! the great spur that has ever urged mankind to ah that is good or wicked. If we consider the different geniuS these . two systems, as described above, we cannot Won" der at this difference of conduct ; and to evinces that it is not the result front chance, but frog' established causes, we shall see the same s pirit working in each, in former ages. Bolingbroke (who was a great historian, 0101101 - bat a poor, reasoner ; and saw facts its their apparent con' nexions, rather than in their interior causes) hails given us the acttal state of Europe in the days James the First ; which bears so strong a ret semblance to our own, in regard to the genius 01 , the two religions, than it cannot b e t h oug ht curious. Oa the one side, the _.% hole PoPisb a interest, in the empire, was closely un i te d ; the cause of Ferdinand was the common cause o' the party. The Popish interest out of the Env; Aire, conspired in the same cause. The King 0 . 1 Poland assisted the Etnptror in Hungary. Troops front Italy, and a great army front the Nether' lands, acted for him in Germany.---Evel Franc e, who ought in good policy to have opposed tl'!; House of Austria, was induced by th e bigotry (!`, her Court, and perhaps by the private int e rest ',nines, to declare for the Emperor against. a ) ! King of Bohemia. On the tidier side, time VW testant interest in the Empire was far from beil ) g closely united; and farther still front making 06 cause of Frederic the common cause of the I'3l l P Even the Princes of the Union had different views. many of them leaned to the Emperor ; none 0 ' ; them could be entirely depended upon: And t 1 Lector of Saxony, the most powerful of the Pro' testant Princes of tite Empire, was so far frail' uniting with the others, that he was first private' ly, and afterwards openly, but ell, along veri steadily, on the side of Peidinand. Out of the Empire, some assistance might have been expec t° ed from the King of Deoruatk and the Dutc h : hut even their accession must have been p u rcb en, at least it must have been made useful, tit " le expenceof Britain.' " Had the writer collected these facts from hir tory, and drawn them thus to one central point' it might justly have been suspected, that be lou thrown a false li g ht upon themiit the recita l ' t that they mi g ht b etter serve his purpose: It when we consider this paragraph as coining fratn an author who was dead before the present asPe of things took pl ace , we cannot but aCknowlol4t , the permanent uniformity of principles, worklt he same effects in the most distant periods time. " The event of this Popish league ought inde ec to strike us with awe, though not with despo'r dency. Frederic of Bohemia was swallowed 11 7 by the confederacy ; but though no human 0! ° can, pietce the impenetrable veil of tate, yet • %ve have reason t o h o p e from what is past, that ro e great Prince now combined against, is not defigi!' ed by Providence as. a sacrifice to bigot power : Let us rather behold_ him as the appointed gusi7 dian angel of truth and liberty, who with th e swiftness of light, and the terror of a whirlwi o 4 l cheats the ft lends of freedom, and overwhelms bec enemies. " The manifest inference is this; as - it appe" .s from these reasonings that the genius of Popel is active, insinuating, furious, unalterable, inanely ; the genius of Protestantism, calm, 1.3. tional, indolent, fluctuating, perishable; that v c f, ought to be most watchful in the preservation w' this invaluable blessing ; and active in the Or, port of those who are the gr ea t supp o iters Protestantism." On the evening of Friday, the 2d inst. the Pavilion belonging to the Earl of EGLINqTOt I at Ardrossan, was entered by robbers dttriok th e abse nce of the keeper, who, , on her Fetin). found her chest and trunks broken up, an d t h r ce five-pound Bank notes, three one-pound notes.' four crown pieces, a Bank of 'England token, tw° eighteen-pence pieces', a sixpence, variows, silver coins, two breast pins, one with a Cairn' gorum stone, and the other with small dianiai►'is set in it, and a gold ring, the whole her own full," perry, carried off. BIRTH On the 34th inst.- at his Lordship's seat, Leistocie Houser Suffolk, the Lady of the Right Hon. Lord Hitntiugfield, s •° l son. MARRIED. Yesterday, at. St. Peter's-le-Poor, Horatio Ripley, eldest son of John Richard Ripley, Esq. of Clapham Coinnion, to Jane Maria, second daughter of J..L. Siordet, Esq. of Austin' friars. a 'r" ~..~. ` s ' ' )• DIED. Yesterday morning, at his house in South Andley-street• Gresvenor-square ' Alexander Brodie, Esq., father to tic Marchioness of Huntly. • On the 14th inst. at Bath, exactly one month after the 'de cease of Ann his wife, Richard Henry Stoviin, Esq. of theme, in the county of Lincoln, in Ins lad year. • On the 26th of May last, at Allahahad, in the East Indier of a fei'er, Lieut. Thlatuas Allen, of his Majesty's 24th nee" ment of Foot. LONDON: Printed by 3. 13. cArtsTAnts, of No. 29, Great Ormond-street, Queeu-s;puare; and published by SW.'• SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South Moltori-street, at TIJF. S'll:4 Office, No. 112, Strand ; where Adre: tisen: cuts, Orderg." Lttters ) tic (4)u - it-paid) iQuit be addressed. It * ))1 ;,‘;